Ever since Super Tuesday a super debate has been raging on FR concerning John McCain. I was never a McCain supporter, in fact I penned the post Super Tuesday post "Official FR Drinking Thread" so we could together drown our common disappointments into oblivion.

FReepers seem to be moving into three distinct groups. The first are those that have always supported McCain, a lot or partially. There are those that don't like McCain but are willing to support him because they believe they will get some of what they want or to defeat what the see as the more critical danger, Obama or Clinton. The there's the third group, those that viscerally dislike McCain and vow never to vote for him for any reason.

The actions and motivation for support from the first two groups seem obvious...they would rather see McCain in the White House than a dem. But for the life of me I cannot understand some of the actions of the third.

Allow me to explain.

I understand you dislike McCain and the reasons why. He is far too liberal on many issues, he has stabbed conservatives in the back several times and he is too cozy with the dems. These are all defensible reasons to not vote for him or to vote third party and you have every right to vote as you see fit and for whatever reasons you hold. What I don't understand is why some here are making such concerted efforts to dissuade others from voting for or supporting him.

As flawed as McCain is there is no way a logical case can be made that we would be better off under Obama or Hillary (O&H). Even on most issues where McCain is closer to the left than to us, O&H are much farther to the left than he is and would do much more damage than McCain. On the issues where he is not, the WOT, taxes, abortion, etc., the differences are stark and this does not even take into count extended issues like judicial appointments.

So why are you working so hard, so viscerlly, so nasty, to turn votes against McCain? If you truly feel as you do than go sit out November or cast your vote for your 3rd party candidate. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why you push for a McCain and GOP loss.

It may be as simple as "misery loves company". It may be that you validate your own position by getting others to believe as you do. It may be that there are some dem propaganda plants on FR. I don't know but I sure would like to and I know others do as well.

D1, It's taken me a couple days of hit and miss FReeping to get through all the responses. I'm trying to organize the them to get a clear idea of their substance and then post a response.

That's okay Bob. I was just thinking, man does this guy have a lot of errands or what? ;-)

One thing I noticed about many and in regards to your first response, my question wasn't why people didn't support McCain, it was why they were trying to get others to do so as well. Peoples opinions on McCain have been posted at great length for some time, pro and con, and they are well known. True...

Some people will vote for their candidate of choice and be done with it while others will feel a greater need to get others to do so as well by volunteering, talking to friends and neighbors, maybe donating. The second group is compelled by not only the support of a candidates positions but also a great desire to see that person elected. True...

That goes both ways. Some people will be so offended by a candidate that they could never vote for them and may just stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. Then there are those who feel the need to go the extra distance to make sure that candidate doesn't get elected. True...

And that was what I didn't understand. Staying home, voting for another candidate or sending a "message" to the RNC made sense, but actively working to get O or H elected didn't. I think I have the answer now, but my question was a good one and not condescending in any way.

Let me preface what I am about to say by reminding folks of some of the knockdown verbal exchanges that took place during our nation's founding. Despite this our Founding Fathers remained loyal to the goal of establishing a greater nation with greater good will toward their fellow man, than any other nation that prededed the United States.

Bob, I personally believe that the election of Senator John McCain to the Presidency will harm this nation severely. Right now I would appreciate it if you would go back and read your last four paragraphs.

If you believe that what I just posted in the last sentence is true, and that I honestly meant what I said, don't you think your comments might have been a little over the top, when addressing those of us who cannot in good concience accept a man like Senator John McCain as our standard bearer? Why should we not advocate for that belief? Are we a lesser class of statesman than those who support McCain? Should we be content not to express ourselves, if we truly fear what a McCain Presidency will mean to conservatism?

With regard to the idea that some who share my views on this forum might be plants, I looked at the join date of every person who sided with me. One had joined a month ago. Another had joined about eighteen months ago. I even looked at the dates in election years to try to assess who I am siding with. I tried to direct most of my extended comments to people who have been here a long time, and that had start dates that didn't look somewhat iffy. What I came away with was the impression that those who sided with me have for the vast majority of cases, been folks who have been here for a long time, or at least four to eight years, except for the two. Closer inspection might reveal I am off a bit, but I don't believe by much.

After I had done that, I considered what the down side would be, if they were plants and simply trying to egg something on. And that is when it dawned on me that if I truly judge that McCain will be a death knell to conservatism, what do I care if Hillary and Obama themselves want to stop the candidacy of the likes of him? Senator John McCain does not suddenly become absolved of his former treachery due to such a happenstance. He does not suddenly become a man who 'gets it'. He is still the man who can't understand why we don't want terrorists trials in open court, where methods and secrets must be revealed to obtain a guilty verdict. He is still the guy who can't understand why it is vitally important to debrief terrorists using any method possible that aren't truly inhumane. He's still the guy who can't understand why we don't want these terrorists to be housed on mainland soil, the focus of all sorts of antagonists of our policies concerning them. And this is the guy that is supposed to be enlightened when it comes to military matters. He is not the guy who is supposed to be giving terrorist supporting leftists cover. And yet he does.

Bob, I don't think you meant those comments to be condenscending. I hope that you understand my comments here are not directed at you as personally as they seem to be, but rather to answer the questions a great many forum members have. Right now there seems to be a wide gap between us. I don't think that gap is as wide as it seems, and I want those on your side to realize that we're every bit as much a concerned conservative as you. And I personally understand that you folks are every bit as concerned a conservative as I am.

We have two paths before us headed into November. You folks have come to the conclusion that the status quo voting for the lesser of two evils is going to get us the most yardage. I have seen the last twenty years worth of yardage, and don't think loosing thirty yards is anything to write home about.

Whatever comes to pass, I want the ball in 2012. I don't care if it's on the one yard line, as long as a true conservative has the ball. When we get that ball the next time, I don't want a Congress that is on our side, and many many lost opportunities to show for it.

Don’t confuse pushing for defeat with standing ground against being pushed around by GOP liberals determined to ram their boy down our collective throats. McCain is a poor choice at best. He’s going down in flames in the general election, much to the glee of the Media, DNC, and many a liberal republican. Party on. I’ll help shovel the ashes from the post crash fire.

705
posted on 02/25/2008 5:18:42 PM PST
by TADSLOS
( McCain-Feingold: "Good for thee but not for me"- John McCain)

I'll start by doing as you asked and looking at the last four paragraphs in my original post (this is what you meant?).

"So why are you working so hard, so viscerlly, so nasty, to turn votes against McCain?"

I believe I have read most articles posted about McCain. There are some, like you, who post thought out reasonable responses. The there are those who post comments that I believe can be described as that above. I wasn't posting that comment to you but to those who it applied to. If you don't feel it describes you, than it probably doesn't.

The extension to that was people who posted to me saying the pro-vote-McCain crowd was just as nasty. I agree, some were. But I wasn't addressing them at the time. I never said the pro-vote-McCain were angels nor did I deny that there were nasty comments coming from them.

"If you truly feel as you do than go sit out November or cast your vote for your 3rd party candidate. That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is why you push for a McCain and GOP loss. It may be as simple as "misery loves company". It may be that you validate your own position by getting others to believe as you do. It may be that there are some dem propaganda plants on FR. I don't know but I sure would like to and I know others do as well."

I stand by this comment, at the time I did not understand the rationale coming from that group. Now I think I have a better grasp on it. I don't feel any better about it but at least I can put it into a framework.

Regarding the "plant" comment, I think it is possible there are people here pushing an anti-GOP agenda (nothing illegal about that but one does have toput those comments into context), but at this point I would expand that to 3rd Party crowd. I don't think it has anything to do with reg dates, some of these people could have been for a long time.

Once again, nothing illegal or immoral about that but pushing an agenda is different than honestly debating an issue, particularly when one talks about principles.

706
posted on 02/25/2008 5:50:56 PM PST
by Bob J
("For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, one is striking at it's root.")

If you truly feel as you do than go sit out November or cast your vote for your 3rd party candidate. That makes sense. I will be writing in.

What doesn't make sense is why you push for a McCain and GOP loss. It doesn't make sense to you that I would fight againt a feau-Conservative becoming a Republican President if I thought it would hurt the special interest group that most had the best interests of this nation at heart? Really?

It may be as simple as "misery loves company". I'm not miserable Bob. How then could I be seeking others to be miserable with me? I am in fear of watching conservatism utterly destroyed by John McCain, with the help of the democrat politicians, the DNC, the repubublican politicians, the RNC and the nation's MSM.

Tell me what public group will advocate for us during a McCain presidency. I can tell you five entities that will speak out against us constatantly. Guys like Bill Krystol will be thrilled to death, to join them.

The moment John McCain becomes president, connservatism becomes a dirty four letter word. It's members will have to shut their mouths for four years or take a body blow from the five groups I have mentioned, with just about every well respected Repbulican of merit, joining them. You'll see that played out here on their forum too, if the last eight years are any indication. That is not a slap at Jim either. It is expressing my view of some forum participants who have defeneded the indefensible for eight years.

It may be that you validate your own position by getting others to believe as you do. It's nice to know others agree with me, but I have voiced my opinion here when nobody else did. My opinion is just that. I don't put my finger up in the wind to see if I should make certain comments. I look at the subject and express my views on that subject. Why would I not think it an insult to have someone lower the bar this low on the validity of my thoughts?

It may be that there are some dem propaganda plants on FR. Perhaps so, and as you alluded, I am not one of them.

I don't know but I sure would like to and I know others do as well. I have explained it in minute detail right on this thread. If folks take the time to read my comments on it, they will see why I think a John McCain term as president would be disasterous for conservatism.

As for the Republican Party, I have no allegiance to it. I was happy to support it when it was represented by good people. I do not think John McCain is a good person.

I asked you a question in #273 Bob. I'd like an answer to that question.

What could a candidate possibly do, that would disqualifiy them as a person you could vote for, just to keep Hillary or Obama out of office?

I'm not asking this question for my benefit Bob. I honestly don't have a vested interest in the answer for my edification. If you don't answer, I'm not going to be put off by it. It is a question that I want folks to ask themselves, if they think voting for John is a good idea, knowing what they know about him. If they do think he passes that sniff test, then what would it take? Is there anything at all that he could do to disqualify him in your eyes? I'll tell you what, don't bother to post. Just be honest with yourself and I'll be satisifed that you were.

You’re post shows you responding to my #706 but all the references are from my original post. Was this intended?

Is this the question you want me to answer?

“What could a candidate possibly do, that would disqualifiy them as a person you could vote for, just to keep Hillary or Obama out of office?”

I’m, sorry R, this is a “when did you quit beating your wife” question. To me, political philosophy and political reality are two different things. Philosophically we have opinions and standpoints that define us as a citizen and voter. We work and strive hard to get the person that most reflects our own philosophies into positions of power so those philosophies can be put into action.

The political reality is we live in a country of 300 million, each with his or her one set of philosophies. People that think EXACTLY as you or I do might only make up 2-3% of the population. But 2-3% of the vote is never going to get anyone elected. So we join up with others who have some of the same beliefs as we do and pool our votes, so to speak, to elect someone who generally holds enough of the same philosophies of the group as a whole in the hope that we can get a majority to elect them and when they get into power we can get some of things we believe in a reality.

The entire time you got the other 50% who generally disagree with your positions working against you in the hopes that they can get their candidate elected.

But no matter what, you’re not going to get 100% of what you want, the system doesn’t work that way. If you get 80% you’re hitting bullseyes but I would say if you’re getting 50% that makes the overall effort worthwhile.

I have no illusions about politics. National parties have less to do with precisely defined philosophies than about getting their people elected and that has a lot to do with money. The party in power gets the salaries and budgets. I have seen too many people who I thought could make a difference get ground up and spit out by the system.

This is my opinion of most politicians...they’re either a whore going in or a whore going out. Nobody is clean and everyone is compromised to one degree or another.

If you’re lucky enough that “you’re candidate” wins the primary, good going and congrats. But if he doesn’t you’ve got to suck it up and do the best you can with what you got. I wasn’t a GB man and actually I was horrified when he got the nomination...but I wasn’t surprised, he was the lowest common denominator and in a democratic society it is usually the lowest common denominator that can pull in enough support from everyone to hit that 50%+1.

I won’t even go into how much Bush has disappointed me, but I would still vote for him over Kerry because I know I’ll get some of what I want. The bonus withBush is we got Alito and Roberts and the long term value of that cannot be estimated.

So to answer you’re question, I would vote for any candidate that would give me more of what I want than O or H, has a chance at winning and it doesn’t matter what party theyare affiliated with.

Call me a principled conservative but a pragmatic voter.

You have you’re reasons to vote or not vote as do I. You took umbrage at some of my comments and I understand (although I wasn’t directing them at you, I didn’t make that clear) and will have to be more selective regarding my language in the future. But I take a little umbrage at the implication that those of us who have decided to vote for McCain because we’ll get some of what we desire and to keep the dems out of the White House, have abandoned our principles, our philosophies and our honor.

I understand completely when you say you have to vote your conscious, you’re heart. Don’t criticize others for believing they are also voting with a little reality in mind.

708
posted on 02/25/2008 7:11:59 PM PST
by Bob J
("For every 1000 hacking at the branches of evil, one is striking at it's root.")

I did revert to the paragraph you posted that you said you stood by. I thought it best to address that in order to express my thoughts on where I am at with regard to McCain. By responding to that paragraph I thought I was able to explain in fairly good detainly what I’m coming from.

As for your comments about us only getting 70% and having to realize that’s reality, I do take exception to that. Let me respond to you in the next day or so. I’ll do it here and take a pass on pinging anyone. I’d rather you and I discuss this without other chiming in to take sides.

After I got to know the candidates better and a few dropped out, one was too strident, one sided with Code Pink, etc., etc., I narrowed it down to Thompson first and Romney second. As time went by, I actually thought Romney was going to be the nominee, and I was ready to vote for him.

Now it looks like McCain has it sewn up. I must admit that the last time I wrote a reply concerning McCain, I rated him lower than a dog turd. That was before Romney suspended his campaign. A few weeks prior, I wrote in a reply that I would not stay home, that I would go to the polls and vote, and that I would not waste my ballot with a protest vote.

Of all the different political parties out there, the ones that actually have a chance to elect a U.S. President, the Republican Party is the most close to my personal beliefs. The basic Republican ideals are family, God and country, however, not every Republican candidate holds, or for that matter, lives those beliefs.

I personally have my doubts about McCain, mainly that he won't have to give his Inaugural speech from a stretcher. But, if he is the nominee, I will vote for him. I will not stay home and let the socialists/communists/marxists win. I will not cast a protest vote that helps the socialist/communists/marxists win. I will not do it. I will vote, and I will vote for McCain.

Yes, hes closer to us than Ubama or Hilldog. And yes, he would probably be a better choice, if the next four years was the only concern. Probably. But as far as Im concerned, if theres going to be an anti-conservative president, Id rather it be a Democrat we can openly fight than a RINO we (and our Congresscritters) feel the obligation to defend and apologize for. Pubbies in Congress are more likely to fight a carbon tax if its proposed by Obama or Clinton than if its proposed by McCain.

Even if it doesnt work out that way and Obamas as much of a disaster as I expect him to be, Id rather see a Democratic disaster for four years, and Id rather see the rest of the GOP learn the lesson to never nominate this kind of moron again.

Ill admit its a gamble, and I might be wrong. I wont be spending any time insulting those who decide to support McCain, but I will defend my position from attacks. If McCain supporters want to keep up their tactics of insulting conservatives who arent on board Im more than happy to reciprocate.

These are my feelings too & many of us here at FR who will not give in to the republican party & vote for whomever the MSM decide should be our candidate.

I'm tired of the liberal media deciding for us!

I will vote for the congressional candidates next November & hope to put some more republicans back in office, but will not vote for President! This is simply a choice between all libs, there is no conservative running!

I will vote for the congressional candidates next November & hope to put some more republicans back in office, but will not vote for President! This is simply a choice between all libs, there is no conservative running!

I will do the same.

714
posted on 03/03/2008 7:11:40 AM PST
by afnamvet
(Support The Troops. Your life may depend on it.)

For example we are still suffering from Bubbas excessive military cuts as it is difficult to reconsitute forces that are fully trained & battle ready.

Not eight years, well OK 7+, years of difficult. The Bush Administration has fought the war on the cheap. A lot of the blame for that goes to Rumsfeld of course, but ultimately the President is supposed to be the leader.

715
posted on 03/05/2008 3:45:55 PM PST
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

Uhhh, exactly whom is that message supposedly being sent to? Not the GOP, it was hundreds of thousands of primary voters that are voting for McCain.

But there other hundreds of thousands who never got a chance to cast an effective vote against him. Such the voters in Texas and Ohio, among others. This was due, in part, to the order of the primaries, which had mostly liberal or less conservative states up front. This eliminated many of the Conservative candidates as they lost momentum, and funding. That and the MSM, and many here as well, tendency to treat elections as horse races.

716
posted on 03/05/2008 3:58:55 PM PST
by El Gato
("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)

It is not a matter of cost but manpower. We do not have the size of the ground forces we used to. When you retire divisions they are not reconsituted overnight. W’s father had reduced the size of the Army from 21 to 15 divisions after the fall of the Soviet Union. Bubba went further and cut it to 11. They are rebuilding them but without a draft it takes more time to man, train and reconstitute these forces again.

719
posted on 03/05/2008 4:08:28 PM PST
by DarthVader
(Liberal Democrats are the party of EVIL whose time of judgement has come.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.